MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE PRICING EFFICIENCY OF LEVERAGED EXCHANGE‐TRADED FUNDS: EVIDENCE FROM THE U.S. MARKETS

2013· article· en· W1580314220 on OpenAlexaff
Narat Charupat, Peter Miu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Financial Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Monetary economicsBusinessGlobal assets under managementPassive managementFund of fundsFinancial economicsClosed-end fundEconomicsEconometricsInstitutional investorFinanceMarket liquidityStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the pricing efficiency of leveraged exchange‐traded funds, whose goal is to generate daily returns that are in a positive or a negative multiple of the underlying index returns. We find that bull funds (i.e., those with positive multiples) tend to trade at a discount more often than bear funds (i.e., those with negative multiples) do. Also, price deviations of bull (bear) funds are negatively (positively) correlated with their underlying index returns. These behaviors are more pronounced in funds with high leverage ratios, and can be partly explained by the funds' daily exposure adjustments to maintain their leverage ratios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207